Essentially, no one but the intended recipient is allowed to use Glass or Google will shut it down remotely. Ownership is tracked based on each Explorer’s Google account, so it may still be possible for a quick demo with your friends, as long as they don’t sign in. It may seem absurd, but this was bound to happen. Companies can now retain control of hardware after its sold.

I can understand - and accept - if this is for the first batch of Glasses, which to me seemed to be meant mostly for developers. Early access to nifty hardware often comes with some pretty draconian NDAs, just look at console development kits, for instance.

But if that stuff is in the general terms for all Glass devices to come? Whoa

+1 and agree w/f0dder. AFAICT that restriction was put on the "Explorer" group's hardware since they're intended for devs.

I can't see them trying to do the same for consumer purchased sets - although being Google, they might be that crazy - since it would be virtually impossible to enforce. Unless...they're planning on keying the hardware to the user's retina pattern?

Hmm...retina patterns...

Ok, maybe it isn't really impossible to enforce single person use after all?

This isn't the consumer release so I don't think the "first sale" rule applies here. This is an advance test/dev release. Since the product isn't being sold as a regular consumer product at this point, I think they're probably well within their rights to put restrictions on the device.

Besides, it all depends on what you agreed to. If you voluntarily waived some legal right as a condition of getting one you're SOL. (At least in the US you are.)

Privacy aside, it has it's good uses. Police have an uncanny record for dashboard camera failures and not having a 'videoing' officer around whenever some illegal or overzealous enforcement activity occurs. Look at the Occupy Wall Street cases where independent observers and news reporters have numerous videos of police officers acting in an illegal manner (and obviously videoing the event) where the police have later claimed (in court) that there were no police videos being recorded at the time of the incidents.

Now imagine a live upload from somebody who has been illegally stopped and is being harassed by the police...That POV footage would sure clear up any questions about what was done or said in a courtroom. Especially if the video were being uploaded in realtime so that taking the glasses away from the victim suspect wouldn't matter.

Wonder how long it's going to take US police agencies to demand a mechanism be inserted that allows the police to shut Google's glasses down in areas where there is an ongoing "police action." Purely for the usual "officer safety and security" concerns, mind you.

It will also be interesting to see if Google goes along with such a demand voluntarily.

Wonder how long it's going to take US police agencies to demand a mechanism be inserted that allows the police to shut Google's glasses down in areas where there is an ongoing "police action." Purely for the usual "officer safety and security" concerns, mind you.

Would not be difficult to do either. All it would take is an RFID-type device embedded in the hardware such that upon recieving an easily transmitted signal the recording functions of the device would be disabled. Or even just use effectively a magic packet similar to those transmitted for wake on lan that when recieved by a consumer device has the same effects.

To make sure it gets done, they simply make it so that the device cannot receive a UL or FCC approval to be distributed in American stores unless said feature is included in a way that cannot be disabled by a savvy end user.

And then of course the enforcement layer to go with all this, is you equate the punishment for having a device that doesn't support these controls or has them bypassed to be as severe a crime as owning an AR-16 rifle. Excluding of course research prototypes and museum display models with appropriate permits.

Now for testing types I can see where Google would name their terms like this. The devices are probably protected anyway under a NDA, selling one even after the testing period would be a breach of nondisclosure.

But to do this on a production model? I think Google might be setting themselves up for a marketplace flop, or at least some very interesting court cases.

I'm gonna go sideways and say this is a classic case where the chinese knockoffs might come into play here. I have thought of stuff off and on like "Set Theory". So the set of "Glasses that See and Record and Upload and more" is a new emerging consumer category. Google has Name Brand so they keep inserting themselves into the media. But what is really going on here is a concept I have quietly followed for some 8 years - "Video Glasses". So let Google play games with their servers.

I saw at a trade show a few weeks ago a pair of Video Recording Glasses. While not quite perfectly intentionally, I have worn Heavy Glasses for years now - so if people see me in new ones, they would say "oh hai, new glasses, kewl kthx bye".

So all they have to do is record data and send it to a local unit such as a smartphone, running an app to post it to a private web server. It's a Category. All that's been missing for a few years is a bit of incremental tech, but it's coming. Anyone can record you anywhere, ever. I chose "Glasses" because yes I grew up with Matrix and Johnny Mnemonic, and also that form factor gives the Tech Industry one more generation - that you can hide some stuff into a heavy pair of glasses that's currently hard to do elsewhere, such as Contacts etc.

Before GoOgle Glasses even came about, I saw ads in catalogs that I get for video glasses as well as video pens, video buttons and video jewelry. If they're going to outlaw GoOgle glasses, then they're going to have to outlaw these devices as well. Otherwise what are they going to do, have you strip down to bare-butt to attend a sensitive meeting or if your around when something "Goes down"? The only way I can see to fix this is to use video-blocking hardware which would also interfere with the legal use of these devices, not to mention probably interfering with other video and possibly audio broadcast.

It's just fine and dandy when the government/law enforcement wants to watch your every move through spy-tech, but it's not OK for the average Joe to use.

The first pornographic app recently appeared for Google Glass, but it will be a short-lived affair, as Google has changed its Glass Platform Developer Policies last week, prohibiting apps that contain sexually explicit content.

The first paragraph of the "Content policies" section now reads: "We don't allow Glassware content that contains nudity, graphic sex acts, or sexually explicit material. Google has a zero-tolerance policy against child pornography. If we become aware of content with child pornography, we will report it to the appropriate authorities and delete the Google Accounts of those involved with the distribution."

The app that possibly prompted the change is called Tits & Glass, which allowed users to watch sexually explicit photos and videos. The company behind the app, MiKandi, was very happy with the initial response, claiming that nearly 10,000 unique visitors visited TitsAndGlass.com in a day. MiKandi also said it was interested in going a step further and using Google Glass to facilitate "two-way adult interaction".

If they're going to outlaw GoOgle glasses, then they're going to have to outlaw these devices as well. Otherwise what are they going to do, have you strip down to bare-butt to attend a sensitive meeting or if your around when something "Goes down"?

I foresee some kind of electronic device to be sold that will interfere with GoOgle glasses recording within X distance away from the device holder for privacy reasons. Then I see a lawsuit against the manufacturor of said device, and will be a big issue.

If GoOgle is outlawing nudity and such, then obviously GoOgle is spying on the glass users, which don't surprise me the least.

As for me..... Just ANOTHER reason I don't use GoOgle products, software or hardware.....

Question in my mind is why did it take so long? After all, most civilized nations - read uncaring and suspicious of their citizenry - have had some degree of video surveillance in place for quite a while (Can you say, "London?"). Maybe, just maybe, Google is doing us all a favor ?

Question in my mind is why did it take so long? After all, most civilized nations - read uncaring and suspicious of their citizenry - have had some degree of video surveillance in place for quite a while (Can you say, "London?"). Maybe, just maybe, Google is doing us all a favor ?